| We DO NOT live
in a DEMOCRACY!
And for very good reasons!
|The following is intended to make you consider
some important questions about things you may have always taken
|The primary one being the perception
that democracy is synonymous with freedom.
|It is not!
And although many of our institutions include some form of
democratic-like participation, We do not live in a democracy!
This continued assumption of the people,
led by just-as-stupid media, and promoted by the devious politicians,
is the major factor that is bringing this country down. Are you guilty too?
republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a
body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
Websters Unabridged Dictionary
democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through
mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy.
Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude
toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is
based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse,
without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism,
license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
U.S. Army Training Manual
If you still don't understand... Read further:
Our Republic was founded upon the principles of Liberty (the right to
do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon
the equal rights of others) and limited government, not democracy.
In fact, seldom if ever will one see reference to democracy in the
founding documents of our nation, at least in a positive context.
Peculiar, don't you think if we are suppose to live in a democracy as
our politicians tell us?
- We had Liberty coins, not democracy coins.
- We have the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of democracy.
- We pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands,
not the democracy for which it stands.
- Patrick Henry said: "Give me Liberty or give me death!",
not "Give me democracy or give me death".
Please take the time and consider the following selected excerpts
copied without permission from Chapter 3 of The Unseen Hand
by A. Ralph Epperson:
"It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a
dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling
"Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of
government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling
oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that
they are indeed the decision-making power of government, but in truth
there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions
for the entirety."
As proof of these contentions, one has only to read the 1928
United States Army Training Manual, which defined democracy as:
(Gee, does this sound like our politicians,
and our media? Hmmm....)
"A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass
meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy,
attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights."
"Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall
regulate, whether it be based on deliberation or governed by passion,
prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequence.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
A democracy, according to this definition, is actually controlled
by a demagogue, defined as:
"A speaker who seeks to make capital of social discontent
and gain political influence."
Do we have our reason, yet?
The 1928 definition of a democracy was later changed by those who
write Army manuals, however. This was all changed in 1952. BUT WHY?
This is now the definition of a democracy in the
"Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the
people decide how the government will be organized and run - and that
includes the Army, Navy and Air Force. These people do this by
electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the
wishes of the people."
The United States is NOT a democracy, |
and this is not the definition of A democracy.
Why do we allow these lies to corrupt our country?
Who decided in 1952 that our Constitutional Republic was SUDDENLY
now a "democracy" ???? HUH?
So... If democracies are in truth oligarchies, where the
minority rules by calculated influence, is there a form of government that
protects both minority and majority rights?
There is, and it is called a Republic, which is defined simply:
In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a
written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited
so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In
addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to
limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the
majority and the minority.
Perhaps the easiest method of illustrating the difference between an
oligarchy, a democracy and a republic would be to discuss
the basic plot of the classic grade B western movie.
In this plot, one that the moviegoer has probably seen a hundred
times, the brutal villain rides into town and guns down the
unobtrusive town merchant by provoking him into a gunfight.
(The L.A.Riots was a mob action too!)
The sheriff hears the gunshot and enters the scene. He asks the
assembled crowd what happened, and they relate the story. The
sheriff then takes the villain into custody and removes him to
the city jail.
Back at the scene of the shooting, usually in a tavern, an
individual stands up on a table (this individual by definition
is a demagogue) and exhorts the crowd to take the law into
its own hands and lynch the villain.
This group decides that this is the course of action that they
should take (notice that the group now becomes a democracy
where the majority rules) and down the street they (now called a mob)
go with pitch forks, torches, and axe handles.
They reach the jail and demand that the villain be released to
their custody. (yeah, right!) The mob has spoken by majority
vote: the villain must hang.
Did you like THAT kind of democracy?
The sheriff appears before the democracy and explains that
the villain has the right to a trial by jury. The demagogue
counters by explaining that the majority has spoken: the villain
(Majority "rules" = (Democracy) - Right?)
The sheriff explains that his function is to protect the rights of
the individual, be he innocent or guilty, until that individual has
the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. The sheriff
continues by explaining that the will of the majority cannot deny
the individual that right. The demagogue continues to exhort
the democracy to lynch the villain,
(Sounds like our polititians...)
But, if the sheriff is persuasive and convinces the Democratic Mob
that he exists to protect their rights as well, the scene should end as
the people leave, convinced of the merits of the arguments of the sheriff.
The Republican form of government has triumphed
over the democratic form of mob action!
In summary, the sheriff represents the Republic, the demagogue
the control of the democracy, and the mob the democracy.
The Republic (Law) recognizes that man has certain inalienable
rights and that government is created to protect those rights, even
from acts of the majority. (Democratic mob)
Notice that the Republic must be persuasive in front of
democracy and that the Republic will only continue to
exist as long as the people recognize the importance and validity of
the concept. Should the people wish to overthrow the Republic
and the sheriff, they certainly have the power (but not the right) to do so.
The persuasive nature of the Republic's arguments MUST
convince the democratic mob that a government based upon Law
is the preferable form of government. (Tough job!)
It is easy to see how a democracy can turn into anarchy when
unscrupulous individuals wish to manipulate it. The popular beliefs
of the majority can be turned into a position by committing some
injustice against an individual or group of individuals.
This then becomes the excuse for the unscrupulous to grab total power,
all in an effort to "remedy the situation." (Watts Riots anyone?)
Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic
form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been
quoted as writing:
"We are now forming a Republican form of government.
Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy,
but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy,
we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
(Hey! That's where we are headed, people!)
Others were led to comment on the perils of democratic forms of
government. One was James Madison who wrote:
"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest
or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"
Another was John Adams who wrote:
"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king,
nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the
prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as
necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a
democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."
George Washington, in his farewell address to the American people
as he was leaving the presidency, spoke about the amending of the
"If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification
of the Constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be
corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitutional
designates. But, let there by no change by usurpation, for though
this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
It was about that same time that a British professor named
Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves
largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From
that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising
the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always
to be followed by a dictatorship."
So now you may ask:
If we live in a Republic founded upon the principles
of Liberty and limited government, why does
the media and so many of our politicians keep trying to shove this
concept of democracy down our throats, as if freedom naturally
(Could it be that they have a hidden agenda? Hint...Hint...)
Perhaps they don't like the limits on the powers that have been
granted them by our state and federal constitutions. Maybe because
majority rule sounds legitimate and moral on its face, they wish to
use our own ignorance to enslave us with the consent of the masses;
and to extract from us every last penny that we have. Or maybe they
have other self serving motivations. Whatever the case may be, only
the knowledge of our heritage will enable us to anticipate such schemes
and act accordingly for the correct direction of our Republic.
| And there is our answer!
"Only the knowledge of our heritage will enable us to
anticipate such schemes and act accordingly for the correct direction of
So, Do your homework,
before you ever say Democracy
again! . . . Please?
Think about it.... Seriously!
© The Educate America Foundation
(It's YOUR country, and the future for your children!)
Don't want to believe me?
Read this PDF.
(you may press your back button to return to the page that brought you here)
Copyright © John R. Beaman -
Educate America Foundation - 1987-2007
[ Read the Tax Law First ]
[ Who has to pay taxes? ]
[ A Conspiracy, or is it Fraud? ]
[ Is the Income tax Constitutional? ]
[ 12 Step program to become President ]